First in response to Brad, you are one year older than I am, not that that matters. To RookieDude, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that you are 50!
I would have guessed closer to 40.
Anyway my opinion about an age cap is not something that just came up, I have been considering it for a few years. My background as a soccer referee played a large part in forming it.
There are always a few people who can maintain their physical fitness, eyesight, and otherwise good health as they age. However, from my personal observations of officials in various sports on both coasts of this country, it appears that these individuals are the exceptions, not the norm. RookieDude, congrats, you seem to be one of those folks. We also have a tremendous official here who is now 60.
As I have already stated FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, has an age limit of 45 for working international contests. In the past couple of years this has forced the retirement of the man who was widely considered to be the best referee in the world--Pierluigi Collina from Italy. There was a brief discussion of rescinding the age limit or granting him an exemption. However, he stated publically that to protect the good of the game that should not be done. Of course, soccer is clearly more demanding physically of an official than basketball, but the concept carries over.
My main point of contention with the older officials is that too many of them get a free pass from a fitness standpoint and they serve to clog up the system while their presence on certain games prevent the next group of officials from gaining valuable experience.
Consider the choice for a second round playoff game between two officials of roughly equal ability. We'll call them A and B. A is 55 years old and has worked twelve years of postseason. B is 35 and has worked three years of postseason. Some would argue that going with the more experience official is appropriate. On the other hand there are others who state that it is unfair, and a catch-22 situation, to the younger official to use this criterion as how does he get more playoff experience if the older guys keep getting the nod over him based on that? If the older official is chosen, then what happens the next year when the situation with these same two officials would be 56 and 36 and the playoff experience would be 13 to 3? What carries more weight--that extra year of seniority or that extra playoff experience? At what point does an assignor make the other choice?
It is my opinion that unless the younger officials are given the opportunities to be in the pressure situations and gain that experience, then they will not improve as much or as quickly as they could and there will be a lack of people ready to step in when the older group calls it quits. In short, the older officials are actually slowing their progress.
Lastly, while an age cap would certainly eliminate a few qualified individuals from consideration, it more than makes up for it in the opportunities that it creates for up-and-coming refs and by providing a safeguard against abuse of political power and cronyism. I have personally witnessed officials put on state tournament games who are long past their prime only because of their connections with those who make the selections. This is not right. Their fitness is never subjected to tests. It is unfair to the participants and not good for the game to have these appointments made, and when they do not perform, it hurts the overall image of officiating.
Others are sure to disagree, but my opinion is in line with Collina's that it is proper to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. There is always a balance that must be found between experience and the declining effect of age on an official. I feel that age limits help find that point.
My recommendations for basketball officiating age limits would be:
NBA = 50
NCAA = 55
NFHS = 60
Ok, old guys, fire away!
